« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
Mr. EICHELBERG. I should like to say that our association supports the United Nations Charter because it believes that it offers a workable, practical means for the achievement of political security, justice, and economic and social cooperation. Although closely following the pattern of the League of Nations, it is much better than the League and an improvement over the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. We should like at the outset to pay a tribute to you, Senator Connally, to Senator Vandenberg, and to other members of the American delegation for the important contribution which you made to the finished product.
We should like to point out that we believe the United Nations will be a well-rounded organization with adequate machinery to carry on in the fields of security, justice, and welfare.
The Assembly of the United Nations, while not given legislative powers, has nevertheless broad authority for the mobilization of world public opinion in support of obligations taken under the Charter. The Assembly will be the world's "town meeting." It will become the world's parliament in which all nations, irrespective of size, may make their contribution to the development of a world conscience in favor of justice and human rights. The Assembly, with authority to discuss any questions within the scope of the provisions of the Charter, may deal with practically all subjects of international relations. Furthermore itmay recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations,
The authority of the General Assembly is clearly established by virtue of its control over the budget; its right to create agencies of the United Nations as needed, and by its authority to elect the nonpermanent members of the Security Council, all of the members of the Economic and Social Council, the nontrust members of the Trusteeship Council and to participate in the election of the judges of the International Court of Justice.
The Security Council will have at least four important advantages over the League of Nations Council:
1. It is restricted to security alone, thus enabling it to concentrate on this subject, leaving other questions to other bodies.
2. It will be in continuous session. If all governments select, as their permanent representatives, men of authority and distinction as the United States has done, the Security Council in continuous session should be able to anticipate trouble and meet it before it becomes serious.
3. The Security Council can prevent as well as stop aggression. 4. It will have at its command contingents of military forces contributed democratically by the member states on the basis of their capacity. We congratulate you in substituting for the unfortunate phrase in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals that the contingents were to be earmarked by agreements among the member states, the much more effective clause that the contingents are to be the result of mutual agreements reached between the members and the Security Council upon the initiative of the Security Council. This is important.
While the provisions for great power unanimity in the Security Council are rather stiff, there is room for day-by-day discussion by the Security Council and the hearing of complaints without the veto as the result of the interpretation of the voting procedure finally agreed upon at San Francisco. And when the nations proceed to enforcement action they will have the combined weight of the great powers who would make an important contribution to such action.
Thanks to the intervention of the American delegates, as well as others, the provisions for justice in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals have been strengthened all along the line, both by repeated reference and by implication. The International Court of Justice will lose none of the experience of the old World Court. But by making the Court an integral part of the United Nations with membership automatic for members of the United Nations, a definite weakness of the old World Court will be corrected.
The provisions for economic and social cooperation to be carried out by the Economic and Social Council as an executive body of the Assembly are in effect a proclamation of hope for mankind of freedom from misery, poverty, and bankruptcy, provided these provisions are wisely used by the governments and the people. The achievements of modern science which man so far has succeeded in using to destroy a considerable part of the human race can be used for the happiness of all people if the purposes and spirit of the Charter are carried out. The authority provided under this section is recommendatory, not mandatory. But principles are established and machinery made available for higher standards and prosperity for mankind.
We believe that the provisions of the Charter toward dependent peoples mark an improvement over the mandate system. A very great advance has been made, not yet fully appreciated, in the provisions that all governments, not simply trusteeship governments, accept as a sacred obligation the welfare of their subject peoples and must-file regular reports with the Secretary General.
While the trusteeship plan leaves to future choice what territories are to be placed under the trusteeship system and the general supervision of the Trusteeship Council, and while no reference is made as to what strategic bases shall be placed under the trusteeship system and the general supervision of the Security Council, the fact remains that a plan is here presented which can be widely used if publie opinion and statesmanship so desire.
The repeated reference to human rights and fundamental freedoms and the provision for the establishment of a commission on human rights open a new era in the history of freedom. From the very first phrase, “We, the peoples of the United Nations * Charter emphasizes the dignity of the human person with human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is the very antithesis of nazi-ism against which we have been fighting. The Commission on Human Rights will encourage cooperation for greater liberty for the individual.
Fortunately, in insisting upon the supremacy of the Security Council in ordering enforcement measures, the San Francisco Conference avoided a considerable danger to the United States. Had the * curity system of the Western Hemisphere been excluded in its enforcement measures from reference to the Security Council, the tritat
States might have found itself blocked off from having anything to say about the settlements of Europe and Asia, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of American boys have lost their lives because of wars that have originated in Europe and Asia.
Another feature of the document which impresses us favorably is that while membership in the United Nations is limited originally and quite properly to the United Nations allies, the laws against war and for the peaceful settlement of disputes are binding upon all states. A nation may refuse to join; it may cease participation, but it cannot escape the law.
There are parts of the Charter which we wish might have been strengthened. That is probably true of everyone. But we are impressed by the fact that the Charter is an excellent document. Mr. Chairman, I have had some experience with the League of Nations; I was at San Francisco as a consultant to the American delegation. I know the criticisms that have been made of the Charter, but I want to say after being at San Francisco for 7 weeks and examining the Charter carefully, I think it is a surprisingly good document. Great principles have been gained and the machinery can always be expanded better to meet these principles.
Obviously, the organization will not of itself guarantee peace, security, and prosperity, but at furnishes us with an adequate instrument to achieve these aims if the peoples fulfill their obligations.
In closing we should like to urge very prompt consideration by the Foreign Relations Committee and by the Senate for at least two reasons:
1. The world needs the United Nations very badly. Each day's delay deprives the world of that means of cooperation under which great economic and political problems need to be met.
2. Because of its position of leadership in the world many nations are wondering what the United States will do. Let us give the demonstration quickly. Let the Charter be reported by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously, and let it be passed unanimously.
We urge that there be no reservations of any kind attached. The power which the American representative on the Security Council will wield is a domestic matter and not a matter for amendment to the Charter. Amendments now, besides violating the Charter, would prompt other nations to similar action and greatly weaken the Organization to start with.
The size of the contingents which we are to contribute is also a matter of subsequent negotiation.
It is our observation that public opinion is almost unanimously in favor of the United States joining the United Nations through ratification of the Charter. The tragedy of two world wars which has touched almost every home in some way or another has produced this overwhelming public opinion. Not only do the people want the United Nations, but they are familiar with the details of the plan.
We wish to assure you that when the Charter is ratified our association will continue its efforts to help promote an understanding of the obligations which the United States has taken and of the ways in which the Organization must be expanded to meet the ever-changing conditions of modern life.
I don't know how my time has run, Mr. Chairman, but if there is a moment or two I would like to introduce, if you will permit it, Mr. Livingston Hartley, my Washington associate, who was in the service as a lieutenant commander and whom I should like to have say : word or two about the attitude of the men in the service.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well, we will hear from Mr. Hartley. STATEMENT OF LIVINGSTON HARTLEY, WASHINGTON, D. C.
The CHAIRMAN. Give your full name and address to the reported and your association.
Mr. HARTLEY. I am Livingston Hartley, 2906 N Street, NW., Washington, D. C., director of the Washington office of the American Association for the United Nations.
Mr. Chairman, I have been asked to testify today because I have served overseas in this war and may therefore reflect the view of others who have served overseas. Both in Sicily and Italy I had an opportunity to hear the reaction of many men from many units on the question of peace and war. Two reactions were almost unanimous. First, having fought in a war, they did not want their sons to have to fight in a war. Second, having seen what war does to cities and civilians, they wanted to keep war away from our country,
I believe these men, if they had a chance to study and understand this Charter, would be, as I am, wholeheartedly in favor of its acceptance by the Senate.
In the discussion of the Charter in this country, a small minority have opposed its acceptance for one reason or another. They have claimed that some unfavorable developments may occur if we accept it. But they have not considered the alternative—the developments which would follow its rejection.
The employment of power politics, for example, will be limited by the entry into force of the Charter. One limitation will be imposed by the far-reaching obligations contained in the Charter. Another will be imposed by the need of all the great powers, who have created the Charter to serve their most vital interests, to refrain from action which might lead to its failure. A third will result from their continuous consulation and adjustment of views in the Security Council.
If there were no Charter, there would be no limitation upon power politics. Rejection of the Charter would cause all the great powers, including the United States, to seek their security alone by successful pursuit of unrestrained power politics, in a world based on rivalry instead of cooperation.
In the economic field, the Charter provides the basis for expanding trade upon a world-wide basis, long the objective of American policy. Without the Charter, the unlimited pursuit of power politics would result in exclusive economic blocs. And the armaments race such a power competition would create, as well as the necessity to prepare economically for the next war, would cause economic costs impossible to estimate now.
Finally, the Charter lays the best basis now possible for the continuance and improvement of our American way of life. Without the Charter, the basis of our American way of life would be progressively undermined by these economic costs, and by the military and
political requirements of seeking to preserve our national security alone in a world of unrestricted power competition.
Mr. Chairman, the points mentioned above are considered in a pamphlet I have here. I should be glad to submit it for the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well, it may be submitted for the record.
(The pamphlet entitled “It's up to the Senate,” above referred to, is as follows:)
IT'S UP TO THE SENATE
THE CONSEQUENCES FOR AMERICA OF ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF THE UNITED
(By Livingston Hartley) Livingston Hartley is the author of two books, several pamphlets, and many feature articles on American foreign policy. He has been engaged in work in this field for 20 years, including 5 years in the United States Foreign Service.
His last book, Our Maginot Line, on the defense of the Americas, which was published just 6 months before Hitler attacked Poland, foretold Germany's march across Europe, her mortal threat to Britain, and the German-Japanese threat to the United States, and advocated the defense policy developed since.
After Pearl Harbor Mr. Hartley joined the Navy and served 18 months overseas in Africa, in Sicily, and with the Fifth Army on the main Italian front and the Anzio beachhead. He has recently been released from service.
NOTE.-This graphic presentation precludes qualifications and explanations. For these see the text.
INTRODUCTION As the Charter of the United Nations Organization goes to the Senate, the American people stand at a cross roads in their history. Before them stretch out two alternative roads into the future. One is the road of success and the other the road of failure in the endeavor of both parties and an overwhelming majority of the people to create effective international machinery for preventing a Third World War.
In order that the people of our democracy may make their wishes known to the Senate on this crucial issue, they must consider just where each road leads.
Millions of words have been written and spoken on our need to participate now in the world machinery for international security. But so far most of us have not tried to figure out in practical terms what is likely to happen if we doand if we do not.
This pamphlet attempts to fill this need. It attempts to examine the consequences for America which can be expected to follow the Senate's decision as to whether our country shall play her part in the international organization.
Such an analysis necessarily deals with hypothetical situations. It cannot be expected to be right in all details; it can only be sound in its major conclusions. These merit a thoughtful search by every American when a decision affecting our entire future must be made this year.